masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Speculation Policy Revision to better serve the spirit of the policy
Voting Support #As proposer. Let's be kinder and gentler, and remember what our real mission is. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:28, March 9, 2013 (UTC) Abstain *There are examples of speculation that were confirmed as fact in later installments, and I do think they should be noted, but I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the place for them to be listed. Note them on a blog or your talk page by all means Garhdo (talk) 00:43, March 10, 2013 (UTC) # I'm with Garhdo on this one. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 01:38, March 10, 2013 (UTC) # Constant speculation undoes do get annoying to watch, but compromising quality in this manner is hardly the solution. 4Ferelden (talk) 01:06, March 11, 2013 (UTC) Oppose #I'm sorry, but no. To quote Lancer, "this is made of fail".--Legionwrex (talk) 21:35, March 9, 2013 (UTC) #Ow, my face. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:38, March 9, 2013 (UTC) #Lancer1289 (talk) 22:00, March 9, 2013 (UTC) #-- Commdor (Talk) 22:09, March 9, 2013 (UTC) #--The Milkman | I always . 22:43, March 9, 2013 (UTC) Factual information is a first. # No. Mass Effect Wikia is about Facts. If you want to speculate go to bsn or create a blog page, leave the articles out of it. By the way, the thing about Joker's sister isn't speculation if a dev confirmed the connection. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 23:14, March 9, 2013 (UTC) # If anything, we should be trying to eliminate the inconsistencies in the policy, not make it looser.--Zxjkl (talk) 23:16, March 9, 2013 (UTC) #Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 23:35, March 9, 2013 (UTC) #Nopes. I don't want to read some star system article with "proven facts of indoctrination" in them. Did you get the reference? Haha I'm so funny and original. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 08:05, March 10, 2013 (UTC) # Avg Man (talk) 00:08, March 12, 2013 (UTC) Further Discussion To anyone who thinks this is a good idea, take a look at Halo Nation and how it turned out. That's all I'll say.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:36, March 9, 2013 (UTC) "Although a 'bright line' is ever to be desired where possible, we should also remember not to take ourselves too seriously. This is a wiki about an entertainment product, and it should be used to inform our visitors as they seek entertainment." Um, no. If someone comes to the Mass Effect Wiki, more likely than not they are seeking information, not "entertainment". It is the duty—nay, responsibility—of the Wiki and its members to ensure that the information presented on this site is accurate and does not mislead readers. Simply because you think something may be a possibility based on what is presented in the game is not a reason to state speculation on the site, nor are paraphrased, unofficial "interviews". (In fact, I'm positive that I've seen a Tweet from Weekes stating that the interviewer completely misconstrued his comments.) LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:46, March 9, 2013 (UTC) :I've not fully thought through the implications of this proposal, so I'll hold off voting for now. While I do think that reasonable speculation/assumption should be allowed, for example regarding Joker's sister, I feel that this particular proposal may go slightly too far. As another example, before ME3 came out they released a trailer explicitly showing every ME2 armour with the name beside it. The exception was the Cerberus Assault Armour, which was shown but not named. We should have been allowed to say that the armour would be in the game, even if we had to say "it can be reasonably assumed that...". A good idea may be to include a speculation warning, much like Wookieepedia does with assumptions (e.g. Reven follows the light side path in KOTOR). So long as it is reasonable, makes minimal assumptions and is not presented as definite fact it should be allowed, but kept to a minimum. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 21:48, March 9, 2013 (UTC) ::Actually that isn't an assumption, that is canon. It is a common misconception. Because the Star Wars canon is much more rigid than ME's, there are really no assumptions. They are only included on Wookieepedia for the games and nothing more to include all possibilities. However, it is canon that Revan is male, is light-side, and made light-side decisions. ::On a side note, Halo Nation is a perfect example of speculation gone wild. There is a reason we don't allow it. That is because if it was, then there would be more speculation than there would be content for whatever reason. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:00, March 9, 2013 (UTC) :::I understand that, but I referring to the way that they highlight that it's not only path that you may encounter in official star wars material. A little speculation is not a bad thing, especially when it goes no further then the example already give. However, it should never be allowed to go further then what logically probable and makes minimal assumptions. Basically, it should be treated like scientific theory. Only there should be as little as reasonably here. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 22:05, March 9, 2013 (UTC) The thing is, even if we went to the trouble of making sure that any speculation is not presented as definite fact, there's no reliable way to make sure it is "reasonable". How reasonable something may be can differ widely from user to user, and whether or not it's included into articles is going to boil to debates between one opinion and the other. Wholly inaccurate information would end up being added through brute force of numbers of users who happen to subscribe to a piece of speculation and can't recognize that it is incorrect or illogical. Furthermore, and this is my main point, no matter how clearly we word things to make it known that a piece of speculation in an article is speculation and not fact, many readers will still misinterpret it as fact simply because they see it in an article. This happens even with our current zero-tolerance policy, users misread or unintentionally skip over vital words and phrases articles all the time. Even I do this on occasion. If we actually allowed speculation, we would be furthering the confusion of many of our readers for the sake of one or a few users being to able to exhibit their pet theories and ideas in article content. And of course, you can see how some wikis out there have turned out with lax speculation policies: not well. In short, to think that weakening this policy will be beneficial is folly. Just because we're a wiki and not some formal, official encyclopedia does not mean we should lower our quality standards. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:09, March 9, 2013 (UTC) I'll just jump back in and offer a few rebuttal points from the preceding discussion. *The proposed revisions are intended to be narrow and surgical - not opening up the floodgates for all speculation or putting us on some slippery slope to become Halo Nation etc. Making a slightly looser policy with the intent of including some useful information via fairly precise and limited exceptions and in the spirit of good faith contributions does not mean we will then somehow abandon our policy altogether. *On the subject of Weekes "disavowing" the tweet, he only complained about the negative slant that came across in parts of the interview, meanwhile confirming the interview took place, and saying the questions were good ones. And nothing in the section relevant to Aeian T'Goni had any of the negative slant issues. The answer in the interview probably does not establish "canon" - but it was clearly a statement that the author had intentionally put the coincidences there to be found. *For those who suggested that the examples I gave were not a problem under our current policy, let me say that those specific pieces of information are being kept out, very aggressively out. If the current policy were being interpreted to permit the information given in the examples, I wouldn't think the policy needed adjustment, since again I'm in favor of the heart/spirit of the policy. *For Phalanx who suggested that the Joker's Sister information should be allowed but this policy suggestion goes to far, let me say I heartily agree with his first statement and attempted to create the narrowest possible set of exceptions. *It will be an honor to go down to unanimous defeat in a good cause. Cattlesquat (talk) 07:58, March 10, 2013 (UTC) I have seen Speculation and Fan Theory pages done very well on other Wikias. ASongOfIceAndFire Wiki does it very well for example - However these pages are separate to the article and generally created because the series in question is still ongoing. The Mass Effect Trilogy is finished, so now any remaining speculation, although it may be proven true in future games, is now redundant. Garhdo (talk) 14:08, March 10, 2013 (UTC) ---- The voting period has concluded and the policy proposal has been rejected 1-3-10. The policy will not be implemented. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:57, March 19, 2013 (UTC)